Current male fertility diagnosis tests focus on assessing the quality of semen samples by studying the concentration, total volume, and motility of spermatozoa. However, other characteristics such as the chemotactic ability of a spermatozoon might influence the chance of fertilization. Here we describe a simple, easy to fabricate and handle, flow-free microfluidic chip to test the chemotactic response of spermatozoa made out of a hybrid hydrogel (8% gelatin/1% agarose). A chemotaxis experiment with 1 μM progesterone was performed that significantly demonstrated that boar spermatozoa are attracted by a progesterone gradient.
Current male fertility diagnosis tests focus on assessing the quality of semen samples by studying the concentration, total volume, and motility of spermatozoa. However, other characteristics such as the chemotactic ability of a spermatozoon might influence the chance of fertilization. Here we describe a simple, easy to fabricate and handle, flow-free microfluidic chip to test the chemotactic response of spermatozoa made out of a hybrid hydrogel (8% gelatin/1% agarose). A chemotaxis experiment with 1 μM progesterone was performed that significantly demonstrated that boar spermatozoa are attracted by a progesterone gradient.
Current male fertility diagnosis
tests focus on assessing the quality of semen samples by studying
the concentration of spermatozoa, the total volume of semen, and the
motility of the spermatozoa.[1] These parameters
directly influence the fertility of a man. However, they give a restricted
analysis of spermatozoa function in vivo.The fertilization
process of the oocytes in vivo is governed by
a set of guidance mechanisms to which spermatozoa respond. Thermotaxis
and chemotaxis are postulated to contribute to directing spermatozoa
in the fallopian tube toward the oocyte.[2] The spermatozoa are initially stored in the isthmic sperm reservoir,
where they become capacitated and therefore able to fertilize the
oocyte. It is hypothesized that movement from the isthmic reservoir
is facilitated by thermotaxis, a process by which a temperature gradient
guides the spermatozoa toward the oocyte at the end of the oviduct.[2] This first attraction process is long-range,
meaning that it is maintained and exists over a relatively long distance
along the oviduct from the isthmus reservoir to the oocyte. Chemotaxis
is the next guidance process, and it results in the attraction of
sperm up a concentration gradient of a particular substance toward
the oocyte. This attraction is short-range because peristaltic movements
of the oviduct restrict the formation of a long-range concentration
gradient. Chemotaxis is therefore the final mechanism that spermatozoa
need to actively follow in order to reach the fertilization site.[2,3]It has been discovered that human follicular fluid contains
several
substances that may cause sperm chemotaxis. The substances that can
be found in the follicular fluid include progesterone, atrial natriuretic
peptide (ANP), heparin, and synthetic N-formylated peptides.[4] Progesterone is one of the main ingredients of
follicular fluid[4] and is present at micromolar
concentrations in the vicinity of an oocyte. Given its physiological
relevance, progesterone has been suggested as a chemoattractant of
spermatozoa. Different concentration ranges of the hormone have been
suggested to have different effects on spermatozoa. Picomolar[3] and nanomolar concentrations[5] were shown to have an attractive effect in chemotaxis.
Results show that the concentration causing a reaction is dependent
on the species and that progesterone may not be a universal chemoattractant
in mammalian species.[3,6] Progesterone was also suggested
as an agent inducing hyperactivation at concentrations in the micromolar
range.[5] The highest progesterone concentration
is found around the cumulus matrix of the oocyte and is in the same
micromolar concentration range that has been reported to cause hyperactivation
of spermatozoa.[5]Standard techniques
used in the lab for the study of cell chemotaxis
do not consider random movement of cells. Devices such as those reported
by Boyden[7] (a transwell-like structure,
where the cells migrate through a membrane), Zigmond[8] (where cells grow and migrate on a coverslip glass through
a bridge between two connected reservoirs), and Dunn and co-workers[9] (similar in structure to the Zigmond chamber
but with the chemotactic agent containing a reservoir sandwiched between
two buffer-containing reservoirs) only allow for unidirectional movement
of the cells, namely, toward the potential chemoattractant. This means
that, for these devices, one cannot say with certainty that the observed
event is chemotactic behavior instead of an increase of the random
motility of the cell.Microfluidic devices can handle very small
sample volumes and are
capable of mixing and dispensing fluids and combining reactions and
separations. This makes microfluidic devices good platforms for performing
various chemical, biochemical, and biological processes.[10] Because the flow in a microfluidic device is
typically laminar, using microfluidics allows for the formation of
a controlled gradient by means of diffusion. This regulation of gradients
gives a controlled environment for the assessment of the chemotactic
response of bacteria,[11−14] somatic cells,[15−19] and spermatozoa.[6,10,20−24] Microfluidic devices to study chemotaxis can be categorized into
flow-based or flow-free devices. As the name suggests, flow-based
devices use the laminar flow in a microfluidic device to create a
concentration gradient via diffusion between streams, while flow-free
devices work in the absence of flow. Flow-based systems provide a
large amount of control and stability, which allows for continuously
running experiments after setup. The advantage of the flow-free systems,
however, is that they can be operated without using pumps.[25] The microfluidic chips that are used are mostly
made from polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS; an optically clear silicone
rubber) or agarose (an optically clear hydrogel).PDMS is a
biocompatible material that is commonly used in the fabrication
of microchips because it has several advantages. PDMS is impermeable
to water in liquid form, nontoxic to cells, and permeable to gases.
Furthermore, PDMS can be easily fabricated and bound to other surfaces.[26] Microfluidic chips made from PDMS are used to
study the motility and chemotaxis of spermatozoa. For example, Koyama
et al.[10] used a three-inlet chip to generate
a chemical gradient via the two outer channels while inserting the
spermatozoa in the middle channel. In their microfluidic device, they
combined the ability to generate and control a chemical gradient with
transportation of the spermatozoa in order to evaluate chemotaxis
of mouse sperm cells toward aqueous extracts from the ovarian tissue.
They operated the device under constant flow to obtain a stable gradient
and prevent, as they mentioned, trapping events from occurring. The
downside of this device is the influence of the flow on the behavior
of the spermatozoa and the need for a pumping system.An example
of a flow-free device from PDMS is the one by Xie et
al.[23] They created a Y-channel to connect
three wells together, where cumulus cells were placed in either pool
A or B, forming a chemoattractant gradient toward the diffusion chamber,
where chemotaxis was recorded. They also noted that a channel of 7
mm would be too long for sperm cells to reach without becoming exhausted.[23] In this case, cumulus cells were used to create
the gradient, which could be placed inside the chip and did not need
an addition of fluid to generate a gradient. If one does not want
to employ cells placed in the chip to generate the gradient but wants
to add a solution instead, such chips will be difficult to operate
without disturbing the gradient or the position of the sample due
to direct hydrodynamic coupling of the different wells[24] or the need of a set of pumps for their usage.[6,10] Additionally small behavior differences might not be visible in
these chips with all spermatozoa present in the diffusion area without
clear boundaries.[10] The flow-free device
can be improved by using a hydrogel instead of PDMS. By using a hydrogel,
such as the commonly used agarose, one can prevent the hydrodynamic
distortion of gradients by providing a wall that allows for diffusion
and that strongly reduces convection.Agarose is a polysaccharide
derived from red seaweed.[27] It is a biocompatible
material that has been
successfully used in fabrication of microfluidic chips for the study
of chemotaxis of several species.[6] The
chip used by these authors consists of a sample channel sandwiched
in between a sink and a source channel, where the agarose material
of the chip separates the channels and only allows diffusion of the
chemoattractant. One then obtains a linear gradient over the sample
channel. This chip was operated under continuous flow in the source
and sink channels and no flow in the sample channel. The movement
patterns of the spermatozoa were recorded to determine the average
direction. It was used to study chemotaxis of sea urchin and mouse
sperm[6] and showed a chemotaxis response
of sea urchin sperm. However, mouse sperm did not show any chemotactic
response to the progesterone gradient presented, also giving interesting
insights in the range of chemotaxis due to progesterone. The concentrations
of progesterone used in this work were 2.5–250 μM,[6] which are above the concentrations of progesterone
in the cumulus matrix.[5] In this work, we
improved the device by operating the entire chip in flow-free conditions,
removing the need for a set of pumps for their usage. The chip is
made out of a hybrid gelatin/agarose hydrogel, improving the viability
of the spermatozoa as compared to agarose. Furthermore, by adding
side chambers to the sample channel and counting the sperm cells in
these, small behavior differences can become easily quantifiable in
these chips. By these modifications, the microfluidic chip is as easy
to handle as the commercially available chambers for chemotaxis assays,
while allowing for a fast identification of small but reproducible
differences in the chemotactic behavior of spermatozoa.
Materials and
Methods
Spermatozoa Sample
Fresh boar semen was obtained from
a local artificial insemination center (Varkens KI Twenthe, Fleringen,
The Netherlands) at a concentration of 20 × 106 cells/mL.
Before their use in experiments, the spermatozoa are placed in a 37
°C water bath for 20 min to preheat and become activated.
Viability
Testing of Different Hydrogels
Three different
hydrogel solutions were prepared for viability testing:(1)
Agarose (agarose for routine use, A9539, Sigma-Aldrich) was dissolved
in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) at 85 °C under stirring conditions
to prepare a 1% (w/v) solution.(2) A gelatin solution (8% w/v)
(gelatin from porcine skin, G1890,
Sigma-Aldrich) was prepared in the same manner as the agarose mixture.(3) A gelatin/agarose mixture (8:1 (w/w)) was prepared by dissolving
gelatin (16% w/v) and agarose (2% w/v) in PBS separately and mixing
with 1:1 (v/v) ratio under stirring and heating (at 85 °C) for
approximately 20 min, until the mixture was clear.The influence
of hydrogel materials on the viability of the spermatozoa
was assessed with SYBR 14/propidium iodide (PI) live/dead staining.
The spermatozoa were incubated in a 1000× dilution of SYBR 14
(stock 1 mM, ex/em 488/518 nm, Life Technologies, Eugene, OR, U.S.A.)
for 20 min and a 100× dilution of PI (stock 2.4 mM, ex/em 535/617
nm, Life Technologies) for 5 min at room temperature. The cells were
then pipetted onto the hydrogel solution. The ratio of live/dead spermatozoa
at the different time points was divided by the ratio of live/dead
spermatozoa of the initial time point. The data of three experiments
were plotted, and a linear trend line was drawn (intercept at 0, 1)
to obtain the number of cells that would lose their viability per
minute.
Chip Fabrication
A positive mold for the chip was designed
in SolidWorks (schematic of the design can be found in Figure and printed on a Formlabs
Form 2 3D printer (Figure , left). The design contains a 2 cm by 3 cm chip, which has
channels with features in the order of millimeters. The height of
the channels is 350 μm. A schematic of the design with the details
of the channel measurements can be seen in Figure . PDMS (10:1 v/v, Sylgard 184, Dow Corning,
Midland, MI, U.S.A.) was poured onto the 3D-printed mold, degassed,
and cured at 60 °C overnight (Figure , middle), creating a negative mold.
Figure 1
Schematic of
the chip design. Left and right channels are the sink
and source, respectively. The middle channel is prefilled with buffer
and loaded with spermatozoa. Side chambers are used as boundaries
for the visualization of spermatozoa. The dimensions are given in
mm.
Figure 2
(Left) 3D-printed mold; (Middle) PDMS mold;
(Right) hydrogel chip.
Scale bar is 2 cm.
Schematic of
the chip design. Left and right channels are the sink
and source, respectively. The middle channel is prefilled with buffer
and loaded with spermatozoa. Side chambers are used as boundaries
for the visualization of spermatozoa. The dimensions are given in
mm.(Left) 3D-printed mold; (Middle) PDMS mold;
(Right) hydrogel chip.
Scale bar is 2 cm.To make the chips, the
prepared hydrogel solution was poured onto
the PDMS mold and left to cure until solid (Figure , right). Afterward, inlets and outlets were
punched from the hydrogel with a 3 mm punch (Harris Uni-Core) to access
the channels with a micropipette for filling with buffer and progesterone
solutions and introducing the spermatozoa.The hydrogel chips
were then bonded to the glass slides to prevent
leakage. For the bonding process, glass slides were first cleaned
with a plasma cleaner. For better adhesion between the glass and the
hydrogel, the surface of the glass slides was silanized with (3-aminopropyl)triethoxysilane
(APTES) and treated with glutaraldehyde. The chips were first submerged
in 10% w/w APTES (Sigma-Aldrich) in deionized (DI) water for 30 min.
The glass slides were then rinsed with DI water before being submerged
in 10% w/w glutaraldehyde (Sigma-Aldrich) in phosphate-buffered saline
(PBS, Sigma-Aldrich) for another 30 min and again rinsed with DI water
and blow-dried. The hydrogel chips were then bonded to the glass slides.
This was only performed for the gelatin and mixed-gel chips, as the
agarose had been ruled out in the viability studies.Fifty μL
of 100 μg/mL poly(l-lysine)-grafted-poly(ethylene
glycol) solution (PLL-g-PEG, SuSoS, Dübendorf,
Switzerland) was pipetted into the chamber and left to incubate for
20 min to reduce adhesion of the spermatozoa on the glass slide. Afterward,
sperm diluent (Beltsville thawing solution (BTS), Solusem, Aim Worldwide,
Vught, The Netherlands) was added into the center channel. Subsequently,
1 μM progesterone (Sigma-Aldrich) in 1× PBS was added in
one well at one side of the diffusion chamber, while the other well
contained only 1× PBS. Finally, 0.5 μL of sperm solution
(20 × 106 spermatozoa/mL) was pipetted into the sperm
inlet. To prevent evaporation, the chip was covered with a glass slide
and put on a hot plate at 37 °C.
Gradient Formation
To optimize the time needed to form
a gradient, experiments were performed with fluorescein sodium salt
solution (Sigma-Aldrich; diluted to 0.005%, diffusion coefficient
4.25 × 10–6 cm2 s–1).[28] The fluorescein solution was added
to one of the side-channels, and the fluorescein distribution was
observed with fluorescence microscopy 4× objective for 140 min
with 5 min intervals.
Progesterone Experiments
Progesterone
experiments were
performed with 1 μM progesterone solution that was prepared
from a stock solution (8 μg/mL). Progesterone solution was injected
into one of the side-channels, and the gradient was settled in approximately
120 min. Afterward, the chips were put onto the hot plate (37 °C).
Spermatozoa solution (0.5 μL; 2 × 106 cell/mL)
was then injected into the middle channel, and the side chambers were
observed with light microscopy (Nikon Eclipse TE2000-U).Our
chip contains several side chambers (Figure ) into which the spermatozoa can swim. Only
the spermatozoa in the side chambers are counted as being attracted.
We define the chemotactic ratio as the number of cells directed to
the chemoattractant divided by the number of cells that have swum
in the opposite direction. A value of >1 is seen as chemoattractive,
while a value of <1 is chemorepulsive. A value of 1 is no reaction.
Results and Discussion
Hydrogel Chip Fabrication via Double Casting
The microfluidic
chip is made from a hydrogel via a double casting method. A positive
mold of the chip is 3D-printed, resulting in a negative PDMS mold
of the chip. PDMS is known for its biocompatibility and contains no
compounds that can leach into the gel as compared to the 3D-printed
material. More importantly, the use of PDMS makes the mold flexible,
which allows the chip to be easily removed from the mold because the
hydrogel chips are easy to break. The molds contain simple semi-3D
structures that are large enough to be 3D-printed and could be micromilled
as well, making fabrication of new designs fast and easy. The double
casting method also means that many molds can be created from a single
master mold, making the process even cheaper and massively parallelizable
if needed.
Optimization of Chip Composition
Three different gel
compositions were tested for spermatozoa viability. These three gels
were chosen for their mechanical properties and optical transparency
and for allowing the diffusion of chemicals. Gels with higher concentrations
are structurally stable but are less optically transparent. Lower-concentration
gels are too fragile to handle and will rupture even with careful
handling.Agarose chips are generally used for diffusion studies
in microfluidic chips, but it had been observed in preliminary experiments
that it causes early exhaustion or death of the spermatozoa. Therefore,
we performed a viability assay on the three different gels (1% agarose,
8% gelatin, and a hybrid 1% agarose/8% gelatin) for the spermatozoa
with a duration of about 20 min. From these experiments we found that
the spermatozoa that were located on the agarose showed a larger decline
in viability (2.4%/min) as compared to the spermatozoa on the pure
gelatin (0.5%/min) and the mixture of agarose/gelatin (0.7%/min).
The spermatozoa on the control slide showed a decline in viability
of 0.1%/min. The pure gelatin would be preferred as a material because
its influence on the viability was the least when compared to the
control. However, the gelatin structures melt at 37 °C, which
is the optimal temperature to mimic physiological conditions. Therefore,
the mixture of agarose and gelatin was chosen because this hybrid
form can ensure the structural integrity of the chips, while cell
death is suppressed as compared to the agarose chips.
Time Window
for Diffusion Gradient
The formation of
the chemical gradient in our chips was investigated. For this, a solution
of fluorescein sodium salt (MW 330.3) was used as a model for the
progesterone (MW 314.5) because of its similarity in molecular weight
and, hence, diffusivity. We found that the gradient takes 2 h to develop
(Figure ), after which
a stable gradient is present during our experiments. After 2 h, one
can see the linear slope of the gradient, which lies in the sperm
channel and stays within 2.5% of its initial slope for at least 20
min.
Figure 3
(Left) Gradient of the fluorescein over the chip. P = progesterone
loading channel, SC = side chamber, and C = main channel. (Right)
Gradients in the chip at t = 5, 20, and 135 min in
au. Because of the imperfect illumination of the chip, the left edge
is less illuminated, which causes the maximum to lie outside of the
source channel.
(Left) Gradient of the fluorescein over the chip. P = progesterone
loading channel, SC = side chamber, and C = main channel. (Right)
Gradients in the chip at t = 5, 20, and 135 min in
au. Because of the imperfect illumination of the chip, the left edge
is less illuminated, which causes the maximum to lie outside of the
source channel.To ascertain whether the spermatozoa
would be able to be directly
inserted while keeping the gradient undisturbed, we tested the interruption
of the formed gradient after adding 0.5 μL of sperm solution
to the center channel. This has been validated by fluorescence images
during addition of 0.5 μL of DI water after the gradient formation
by fluorescein sodium salt, where no difference of the gradient could
be observed (data not shown). This fits the calculations, as the height
of the channel is 0.35 mm, while the width is 1.5–3 mm. The
displacement of the liquid in the channel by the addition of 0.5 μL
would be less than 1 mm (0.95 mm), which is less than the entrance
length of the channel, causing no disruption in the gradient in the
channel further onward.
Chemotaxis Tests
After establishing
the chemical gradient
in the hydrogel chips, where the gradient in the main channel is linear,
several experiments on the chemotaxis of spermatozoa were performed
with a progesterone solution of 1 μM (the concentration found
around the cumulus cells). For the control, we used 6 chips, and for
the chemotaxis conditions (alternating left and right to prevent influence
from any chirality of the spermatozoa), 21 chips were used. The average
amount of cells observed was 249 per condition (minimum 78). Afterward,
the means of the two conditions (progesterone or no progesterone)
were compared using a two-tailed t test with independent
variances and showed a significant difference (p <
0.01, Figure ). The
chemotactic ratio that was found was 1.41 for the cells that had been
exposed to a gradient of progesterone versus 1.09 for the control.
The average for left and right cells were 1.39 and 1.44, respectively;
a two-tailed t test showed that the values for left-oriented
chemotaxis were not significantly different from those of the right-oriented
chemotaxis (p = 0.71). In a single chip, there is
the option to take the average of up to four chambers, which allows
for comparison of single-chip experiments. In one case, however, the
results would be not significant with a p-value of
0.067; therefore, we would advise use of at least three chips to ensure
that the results can be trusted. Compared to other studies, our chemotactic
ratio seems to be a bit higher (1.4 versus 1.2,[23] and various ratios from different ovary extracts from 1
to 3 with an average of 1.2[10]), but this
might be caused by the different species used, the difference in the
chemoattractant, the geometry, or the presence of flow, where the
first study[23] has a longer Y-shaped channel
and used cumulus cells instead of a progesterone solution and the
second study[10] has ovary extracts at different
concentrations in the presence of flow.
Figure 4
Chemotactic ratio of
the spermatozoa. N = 6 for
the control, N = 21 for progesterone (P). Error bars
are one standard deviation.
Chemotactic ratio of
the spermatozoa. N = 6 for
the control, N = 21 for progesterone (P). Error bars
are one standard deviation.
Conclusion
Here we showed the development of a flow-free
microfluidic chip
to test the chemotactic response of spermatozoa. Compared to other
designs, our chip is easy to handle while allowing for a fast identification
of small but reproducible differences in the chemotactic behavior
of spermatozoa. For our design, a hybrid hydrogel (8% gelatin/1% agarose)
was shown to be optimal because of its biocompatibility and availability
to work at biologically relevant temperatures. Additionally, the 3D-printed
design allows for fast production of the hydrogel chips without cleanroom
fabrication. Multiple PDMS molds can be made from one 3D-printed mold
for easy upscaling. Another advantage is that the PDMS molds are flexible
and allow for easy removal of low w/v hydrogel chips without damaging
them.With our flow-free device, we showed that the spermatozoa
are attracted
by a progesterone gradient in the physiological range. Therefore,
our device is capable of investigating the chemotactic behavior of
spermatozoa, paving the road to investigate this effect for other
chemicals to get a better fundamental understanding of the guiding
mechanism.
Authors: Daniel Irimia; Su-Yang Liu; William G Tharp; Azadeh Samadani; Mehmet Toner; Mark C Poznansky Journal: Lab Chip Date: 2005-12-23 Impact factor: 6.799
Authors: Yu-Chih Chen; Steven G Allen; Patrick N Ingram; Ronald Buckanovich; Sofia D Merajver; Euisik Yoon Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2015-05-18 Impact factor: 4.379